On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: > Michael J Gruber wrote: > >Maybe the upcoming git-sequencer could be the appropriate place? It > >tries to achieve just that: edit history by specifying a list of > >commands. The currently planned set of commands would need to be > > That's the problem. Like git filter-branch, git sequencer needs you to > parameterise the changes, which, in my case, is hardly possible, since > the changes are randomlike. > Also, having to run the sequencer to dig 20000 commits into the past, > then change something, then come back up and rewrite all following > history and relations (parents/tags/merges) will take a sizeable amount > of time. I need something that can be changed at will, then viewed with > gitk a second later. > > These edits are numerous and spread over many months, so the typical > history fixup-sessions involve periods where you make 30 random > historicaledits per hour (which need to be viewed and checked every time > immediately after making the change). And say once every 4 months, you > run it through git filter-branch to cast everything into stone. A > typical git filter-branch run takes 15 minutes on a repository this > size. I think the point was more about making a tool to do exactly what you want, based on the new git sequencer. Note that git filter-branch could also be rewritten to use the sequencer. Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
